Colorado court quashed death sentence of a convicted murderer because jurors consulted their Bibles to reach a verdict. Apparently one of the Bible passages written down by the jurors included the verse that commands 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'.
Maybe the judges were worried that the jurors might have demanded death by stoning?
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Who was Abraham? (7)
Based on the works of scholars, who will be revealed when the blogging for this topic ends. Works of other authors may be included, but where these are done, full acknowledgement will be made.
Advice: Those who may take offence in seeing biblical (OT) quotations or liberal discussion of OT biblical characters should not read this topic.
In Genesis Chapter 41, the Pharaoh had troubling dreams about seven cows and then seven ears of corn. No one could interpret the dreams, not even all the magicians and wise men of Egypt. (Genesis 41:8)
Anyone who has worked in organizations know how those around the throne (of any kind) operate, would find the honest admittance of ignorance in the Pharaoh’s court rather unusual. Had one of those magicians or wise men made an interpretation, even a false one, poor Joseph would have continued to languish in prison.
Of course, it being a saga in the bible, we may ascribe the strange humility or reticence of those magicians and wise men as designed by God. The stage was thus set for Joseph to ascend to power.
The Pharaoh’s chief butler, who had experienced Joseph’s amazing ability, strangely remembered him after two long years, and recommended the Hebrew prisoner to the Pharaoh. (Genesis 41:9-13)
Joseph interpreted the Pharaoh’s dreams as we now know it.
We have now come to the second strange part of the story. Based on the words of a foreign criminal – remember Joseph was a prisoner, jailed undoubtedly on a false charge, but nevertheless still an incarcerated criminal – that could not be realised until at least 14 years had passed, Pharaoh decided to elevate him to the position of CEO of his nation.
And Pharaoh said unto Joseph. Forasmuch as God hath shewed thee all this, there is none so discreet and wise as thou art:
Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou.
And Pharaoh said unto Joseph. See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt.
(Genesis 41:39-41)
Then Pharaoh gave his own ring to 30-year old Joseph, set him up as the new Grand Vizier, virtually the No 2 man after the Pharaoh, provided him with an Egyptian name and married him off to an Egyptian lady, the daughter of a priest. (Genesis 41:42-46)
But consider once again - Joseph was a common criminal, a Hebrew whose career resume would state shepherd until 17, slave, convicted rapist, prisoner.
Purely on the basis that he made an as yet unfulfilled prediction of the Pharaoh’s dreams, a prediction that would only be known for its veracity after more than a decade had passed, the King made him the Grand Vizier of Egypt. Why not some other Egyptian officials who probably possessed more knowledge and experience on agricultural logistics and grain production? And what happened to the Grand Vizier before Joseph's promotion?
Was it conceivable that the mighty Pharaoh, any Pharaoh for that matter, would make such an illogical decision?
James L Krugel published in 1997 a book called The Bible As It Was, which basically expands, explains and clarifies the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament. At the time of publishing of his book, Krugel was Starr Professor of Hebrew Literature at Havard University and Professor of Bible at Bar Ilan Univeristy in Israel.
Krugel quoted Philo, a Greek-speaking Egyptian Jew in Alexandria who lived from 20 B.C.E to C.E 50. Philo apparently wrote that the Pharaoh consulted his companions quietly, out of Joseph's hearing, about the advisability of appointing Joseh, to which they with one accord praised and applauded his words ...
Krugal also quoted the Jubilees, purportedly a book of divine relevations to Moses, but identified as written around the second century B.C.E or even later. Jubilees retold the Book of Genesis with more details, as it certainly would. It stated in Chapter 40:8 'All of Pharaoh's princes, all of his servants, and all who were doing the king's work loved him because he conducted hmself in a just way.'
As expected, the two references haven't been helpful in explaining the strange appointment of Joseph, the great-grandson of Abraham, to such an exalted position in the House of Pharaoh. Why would the Pharaoh's princes and staff love an unknown foreigner, who was also a common criminal, a state prisoner?
Krugel's book has been obviously for the converted, to fill in unexplained gaps in the first five Books of the Old Testament.
Could it then be that the answer to this mysterious elevation of Joseph from criminal to Grand Vizier lie in Judah’s praise of him ‘for thou art even as Pharaoh’ (Genesis 44:18). Was that statement just apple-polishing by his worried brother, or intended by the authors of the Torah as a symbolic (covert) message?
To be continued ........
Advice: Those who may take offence in seeing biblical (OT) quotations or liberal discussion of OT biblical characters should not read this topic.
In Genesis Chapter 41, the Pharaoh had troubling dreams about seven cows and then seven ears of corn. No one could interpret the dreams, not even all the magicians and wise men of Egypt. (Genesis 41:8)
Anyone who has worked in organizations know how those around the throne (of any kind) operate, would find the honest admittance of ignorance in the Pharaoh’s court rather unusual. Had one of those magicians or wise men made an interpretation, even a false one, poor Joseph would have continued to languish in prison.
Of course, it being a saga in the bible, we may ascribe the strange humility or reticence of those magicians and wise men as designed by God. The stage was thus set for Joseph to ascend to power.
The Pharaoh’s chief butler, who had experienced Joseph’s amazing ability, strangely remembered him after two long years, and recommended the Hebrew prisoner to the Pharaoh. (Genesis 41:9-13)
Joseph interpreted the Pharaoh’s dreams as we now know it.
We have now come to the second strange part of the story. Based on the words of a foreign criminal – remember Joseph was a prisoner, jailed undoubtedly on a false charge, but nevertheless still an incarcerated criminal – that could not be realised until at least 14 years had passed, Pharaoh decided to elevate him to the position of CEO of his nation.
And Pharaoh said unto Joseph. Forasmuch as God hath shewed thee all this, there is none so discreet and wise as thou art:
Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou.
And Pharaoh said unto Joseph. See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt.
(Genesis 41:39-41)
Then Pharaoh gave his own ring to 30-year old Joseph, set him up as the new Grand Vizier, virtually the No 2 man after the Pharaoh, provided him with an Egyptian name and married him off to an Egyptian lady, the daughter of a priest. (Genesis 41:42-46)
But consider once again - Joseph was a common criminal, a Hebrew whose career resume would state shepherd until 17, slave, convicted rapist, prisoner.
Purely on the basis that he made an as yet unfulfilled prediction of the Pharaoh’s dreams, a prediction that would only be known for its veracity after more than a decade had passed, the King made him the Grand Vizier of Egypt. Why not some other Egyptian officials who probably possessed more knowledge and experience on agricultural logistics and grain production? And what happened to the Grand Vizier before Joseph's promotion?
Was it conceivable that the mighty Pharaoh, any Pharaoh for that matter, would make such an illogical decision?
James L Krugel published in 1997 a book called The Bible As It Was, which basically expands, explains and clarifies the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament. At the time of publishing of his book, Krugel was Starr Professor of Hebrew Literature at Havard University and Professor of Bible at Bar Ilan Univeristy in Israel.
Krugel quoted Philo, a Greek-speaking Egyptian Jew in Alexandria who lived from 20 B.C.E to C.E 50. Philo apparently wrote that the Pharaoh consulted his companions quietly, out of Joseph's hearing, about the advisability of appointing Joseh, to which they with one accord praised and applauded his words ...
Krugal also quoted the Jubilees, purportedly a book of divine relevations to Moses, but identified as written around the second century B.C.E or even later. Jubilees retold the Book of Genesis with more details, as it certainly would. It stated in Chapter 40:8 'All of Pharaoh's princes, all of his servants, and all who were doing the king's work loved him because he conducted hmself in a just way.'
As expected, the two references haven't been helpful in explaining the strange appointment of Joseph, the great-grandson of Abraham, to such an exalted position in the House of Pharaoh. Why would the Pharaoh's princes and staff love an unknown foreigner, who was also a common criminal, a state prisoner?
Krugel's book has been obviously for the converted, to fill in unexplained gaps in the first five Books of the Old Testament.
Could it then be that the answer to this mysterious elevation of Joseph from criminal to Grand Vizier lie in Judah’s praise of him ‘for thou art even as Pharaoh’ (Genesis 44:18). Was that statement just apple-polishing by his worried brother, or intended by the authors of the Torah as a symbolic (covert) message?
To be continued ........
Why US is anti-ICC!
Now we know why the US has been and is still against the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Read the authorisations of the US military Commander in Iraq that had led to the Abu Ghraib and other war crimes.
Read how a US army captain killed an unarmed and wounded Iraqi and then claimed it was ‘honourable’.
Read the authorisations of the US military Commander in Iraq that had led to the Abu Ghraib and other war crimes.
Read how a US army captain killed an unarmed and wounded Iraqi and then claimed it was ‘honourable’.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Who was Abraham? (6)
Based on the works of scholars, who will be revealed when the blogging for this topic ends. Works of other authors may be included, but where these are done, full acknowledgement will be made.
Advice: Those who may take offence in seeing biblical (OT) quotations or liberal discussion of OT biblical characters should not read this topic.
The Pharaoh was a God-King to his people. He was looked upon as more than a mere ruler; he was in fact a god, a divine being chosen to lead the people and maintain order, and provided an important link between the Egyptian people and their gods.
Yet, when the Hebrews resided in Egypt, according to the Bible they worshipped their own God. Even when Joseph, an Egyptian prisoner, interpreted the Pharaoh’s dream, he attributed his ability to his own Hebraic God (Genesis 41:16 & 25 &28-32). Then we even have Pharaoh acknowledging Joseph’s God in Genesis 41:39.
These biblical incidents represented repetitive affronts to the divinity of the Egyptian God-King. Egyptologists said that it was unacceptable for anyone to confront the divine Pharaoh with an alien God. He would have been executed or at best thrown into prison.
The Hebrews would never have been allowed to worship their own God, especially after they became slaves.
But could they have done it covertly? Would this be possible for a population of 2,000,000 Hebrews, and for a period of 430 years, to do so without the Pharaoh and his councillors ever knowing about it or stopping such alien worship? The logical answer has to be a resounding no.
Then, could there be another more sensible reason?
To be continued ……..
Advice: Those who may take offence in seeing biblical (OT) quotations or liberal discussion of OT biblical characters should not read this topic.
The Pharaoh was a God-King to his people. He was looked upon as more than a mere ruler; he was in fact a god, a divine being chosen to lead the people and maintain order, and provided an important link between the Egyptian people and their gods.
Yet, when the Hebrews resided in Egypt, according to the Bible they worshipped their own God. Even when Joseph, an Egyptian prisoner, interpreted the Pharaoh’s dream, he attributed his ability to his own Hebraic God (Genesis 41:16 & 25 &28-32). Then we even have Pharaoh acknowledging Joseph’s God in Genesis 41:39.
These biblical incidents represented repetitive affronts to the divinity of the Egyptian God-King. Egyptologists said that it was unacceptable for anyone to confront the divine Pharaoh with an alien God. He would have been executed or at best thrown into prison.
The Hebrews would never have been allowed to worship their own God, especially after they became slaves.
But could they have done it covertly? Would this be possible for a population of 2,000,000 Hebrews, and for a period of 430 years, to do so without the Pharaoh and his councillors ever knowing about it or stopping such alien worship? The logical answer has to be a resounding no.
Then, could there be another more sensible reason?
To be continued ……..
Monday, March 28, 2005
Judas Iscariot - Betrayer or Scapegoat?
Allan Massie of The Independent investigated into the world’s most famous betrayer, Judas Iscariot, and wondered whether the poor bloke had been made a biblical scapegoat these past 2000 odd years.
Wikipedia has this to say about Judas Iscariot:
Judas is also the subject of many philosophical writings, including The Problem of Natural Evil by Bertrand Russell and Three Versions of Judas, a short story by Jorge Luis Borges. They both allege various problematic ideological contradictions with the discrepancy between Judas' actions and his eternal punishment.
(1) If Jesus foresees Judas' betrayal then Judas has no free will, and cannot avoid betraying Jesus;
(2) If Judas cannot control his betrayal of Jesus, then his punishment and portrayal as a traitor in western culture is undeserved;
(3) If Judas is sent to Hell for his betrayal, and his betrayal was a necessary step in the humanity-saving death of Jesus Christ, then Judas is being punished for saving humanity;
(4) If Jesus only suffered while dying on the cross, and then ascended into Heaven, while Judas must suffer for eternity in Hell, then Judas has suffered much more for the sins of humanity than Jesus, and his role in the Atonement is that much more significant.
The Bible also states that on the cross Christ forgave those that had contributed to his death, saying that they 'know not what they do.' However Judas seems to have not been included in this pardon.
Allan Massie identified John (the Apostle) as the one who was out to get Judas. John was not satisfied with Judas as a mere betrayer but went on to label him a thief. Massie quoted a Canadian scholar, Professor William Klassen of the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem, and Hyam Maccoby, author of Judas Iscariot and the Myth of Jewish Evil, as two who questioned the Church’s continuous stress on Judas as a betrayer.
Massie suggested one reason for Judas falling out with Jesus was that he was a person who had a social conscience and was disturbed by Christ’s attitude in an incident, thus losing confidence in the ‘Messiah’. Massie also remarked:
Klassen sees the demonisation of Judas gathering pace as the Christian sect moved away from its Jewish roots as a result of St Paul's mission to the Gentiles. Judas, then, in this Greek-speaking Church, became the stereotype of the treacherous Jew, rejecting and betraying Christ. Klassen traces the development of Judas' role from the earliest Gospel, Mark, to thefull-blown villainy presented in the last written Gospel, John.
There might of course be another explanation. If that gospel really was written by the Apostle John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, or compiled by someone who had spoken with John, then it might even reflect a personal animus.
Hyam Maccoby goes further than Professor Klassen. In his opinion, the Judas story did not ‘spring from any actual event’ but was ‘dictated by mythological necessity. In other religious myths, a deity who brings salvation by his violent death has to have an evil betrayer. Judas was therefore elected as the fall-guy.’ The role, played on an individual level by Judas, is played also by the Jews as a whole. Making Judas guilty allowed the medieval Church to pretend neither Jesus nor the other apostles were Jewish.
A bit of Jew-bashing by the Christian Church? A 're-invention' of Jesus Christ as a non-Jew? Certainly plenty of food for thoughts!
The full Allan Massie's article here.
Wikipedia has this to say about Judas Iscariot:
Judas is also the subject of many philosophical writings, including The Problem of Natural Evil by Bertrand Russell and Three Versions of Judas, a short story by Jorge Luis Borges. They both allege various problematic ideological contradictions with the discrepancy between Judas' actions and his eternal punishment.
(1) If Jesus foresees Judas' betrayal then Judas has no free will, and cannot avoid betraying Jesus;
(2) If Judas cannot control his betrayal of Jesus, then his punishment and portrayal as a traitor in western culture is undeserved;
(3) If Judas is sent to Hell for his betrayal, and his betrayal was a necessary step in the humanity-saving death of Jesus Christ, then Judas is being punished for saving humanity;
(4) If Jesus only suffered while dying on the cross, and then ascended into Heaven, while Judas must suffer for eternity in Hell, then Judas has suffered much more for the sins of humanity than Jesus, and his role in the Atonement is that much more significant.
The Bible also states that on the cross Christ forgave those that had contributed to his death, saying that they 'know not what they do.' However Judas seems to have not been included in this pardon.
Allan Massie identified John (the Apostle) as the one who was out to get Judas. John was not satisfied with Judas as a mere betrayer but went on to label him a thief. Massie quoted a Canadian scholar, Professor William Klassen of the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem, and Hyam Maccoby, author of Judas Iscariot and the Myth of Jewish Evil, as two who questioned the Church’s continuous stress on Judas as a betrayer.
Massie suggested one reason for Judas falling out with Jesus was that he was a person who had a social conscience and was disturbed by Christ’s attitude in an incident, thus losing confidence in the ‘Messiah’. Massie also remarked:
Klassen sees the demonisation of Judas gathering pace as the Christian sect moved away from its Jewish roots as a result of St Paul's mission to the Gentiles. Judas, then, in this Greek-speaking Church, became the stereotype of the treacherous Jew, rejecting and betraying Christ. Klassen traces the development of Judas' role from the earliest Gospel, Mark, to thefull-blown villainy presented in the last written Gospel, John.
There might of course be another explanation. If that gospel really was written by the Apostle John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, or compiled by someone who had spoken with John, then it might even reflect a personal animus.
Hyam Maccoby goes further than Professor Klassen. In his opinion, the Judas story did not ‘spring from any actual event’ but was ‘dictated by mythological necessity. In other religious myths, a deity who brings salvation by his violent death has to have an evil betrayer. Judas was therefore elected as the fall-guy.’ The role, played on an individual level by Judas, is played also by the Jews as a whole. Making Judas guilty allowed the medieval Church to pretend neither Jesus nor the other apostles were Jewish.
A bit of Jew-bashing by the Christian Church? A 're-invention' of Jesus Christ as a non-Jew? Certainly plenty of food for thoughts!
The full Allan Massie's article here.
Sunday, March 27, 2005
Christianity Spread Because Circumcision Not Required!
If there is one man who did more for Christianity than any other man, it was the Apostle Paul. His influence and efforts were so great that in an Easter Sunday TV programme hosted by Peter Jennings of ABC America, Paul was referred to by Christian theologians as the joint founder of Christianity.
The programme brought out 3 main issues that Paul contributed to the popularity of Christianity. Firstly, he made it available to the gentiles or non-Jews on an equal basis, even at one stage rebuking the Apostle Peter for not ‘breaking bread’ together with these new converts, who were then considered by the original disciples of Jesus as ‘unclean’ and more or less ‘second class’ adherents (Galatians 2:11-14)
Secondly, he turned the indignity and shame of the crucifixion of Christ into a saga of incredible sacrifice by the Son of God so that the ‘people could be saved’ . In essence, by promoting the concept of Jesus' earthly 'sacrifice' to save the believers, he salvaged the day for the church, for otherwise it would have been ridiculous for the so-called Son of God to die ignominiously like a common criminal, totally ignored by his Heavenly Father.
But the most significant factor he instituted that led to the spread of Christianity was the abandonment of the requirement for circumcision.
For Hebrews (Jews) who kept faith with God, circumcision was mandatory, as the act was a symbol of their covenant with God.
“And God said unto Abraham. Thou shall keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every man among you shall be circumcised.
And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.” (Genesis 17:9-11)
Then, the biblical instructions went on with specific details as to who must be circumcised.
Because of this, the converted to Jesus' new church initially had to be circumcised. Paul did away with that, believing that the circumcision wasn’t necessary for salvation. Paul revolutionised (threw away) many Jewish traditional practices making it convenient for the gentiles wishing to join his new church.
In the Book of Joshua, Chapter 5, it was shown that circumcision was not an original Hebraic religious tradition. In fact, it was an Egyptian practice. The Bible stated that after Joshua had carried out God's instruction to circumcise those who were born after the Hebrews escaped from Egypt and thus were uncircumcised, God said:
“Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you.” (Joshua 5:9)
Modern historians take that to mean, with the circumcision, the Hebrews were no longer in disgrace in the eyes of the Egyptians who previously viewed them with contempt because of their uncircumcised state. However, some Church leaders still refused to accept this modern understanding, and instead translated it to mean that the Hebrews were no longer Egyptian slaves.
But there is no doubt that the Egyptians predated the Hebrews in the practice of circumcision. The Hebrews had adopted many Egyptian traditions and practices as was discussed previously in Why Orthodox Jews Don’t Eat Pork!. Apparently, circumcision was another adopted Egyptian practice.
Isn't this food ... or rather foreskin for thoughts?
The programme brought out 3 main issues that Paul contributed to the popularity of Christianity. Firstly, he made it available to the gentiles or non-Jews on an equal basis, even at one stage rebuking the Apostle Peter for not ‘breaking bread’ together with these new converts, who were then considered by the original disciples of Jesus as ‘unclean’ and more or less ‘second class’ adherents (Galatians 2:11-14)
Secondly, he turned the indignity and shame of the crucifixion of Christ into a saga of incredible sacrifice by the Son of God so that the ‘people could be saved’ . In essence, by promoting the concept of Jesus' earthly 'sacrifice' to save the believers, he salvaged the day for the church, for otherwise it would have been ridiculous for the so-called Son of God to die ignominiously like a common criminal, totally ignored by his Heavenly Father.
But the most significant factor he instituted that led to the spread of Christianity was the abandonment of the requirement for circumcision.
For Hebrews (Jews) who kept faith with God, circumcision was mandatory, as the act was a symbol of their covenant with God.
“And God said unto Abraham. Thou shall keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every man among you shall be circumcised.
And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.” (Genesis 17:9-11)
Then, the biblical instructions went on with specific details as to who must be circumcised.
Because of this, the converted to Jesus' new church initially had to be circumcised. Paul did away with that, believing that the circumcision wasn’t necessary for salvation. Paul revolutionised (threw away) many Jewish traditional practices making it convenient for the gentiles wishing to join his new church.
In the Book of Joshua, Chapter 5, it was shown that circumcision was not an original Hebraic religious tradition. In fact, it was an Egyptian practice. The Bible stated that after Joshua had carried out God's instruction to circumcise those who were born after the Hebrews escaped from Egypt and thus were uncircumcised, God said:
“Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you.” (Joshua 5:9)
Modern historians take that to mean, with the circumcision, the Hebrews were no longer in disgrace in the eyes of the Egyptians who previously viewed them with contempt because of their uncircumcised state. However, some Church leaders still refused to accept this modern understanding, and instead translated it to mean that the Hebrews were no longer Egyptian slaves.
But there is no doubt that the Egyptians predated the Hebrews in the practice of circumcision. The Hebrews had adopted many Egyptian traditions and practices as was discussed previously in Why Orthodox Jews Don’t Eat Pork!. Apparently, circumcision was another adopted Egyptian practice.
Isn't this food ... or rather foreskin for thoughts?
USA - Consistently Inconsistent! (2)
The USA had originally stopped an already paid-for sale of F-16 fighter-attack aircraft to Pakistan two decades ago because the South Asian nation was developing nuclear weapons. Now that Pakistan HAS developed the N-weapons, President Bush has approved the sale of nuclear-capable F-16s to that country.
As I mentioned in an earlier posting USA – Consistently Inconsistent! the sheer inconsistency and illogic of American foreign policy has been nothing more than prostitution of its good world leadership and commonsense.
Just because Pakistan played footsy with the USA during the latter's Afghan adventure, Bush believes it is appropriate to reward a country with such a nuclear weapon capable platform as the F-16. Pakistan has a history of bellicosity with its neighbour, India. Contrary to what some assumed to be a new environment of amity between the two South Asian nations, the hostility has been very deep and, unfortunately continues to exist enduringly and threateningly.
The only reason why Pakistan had succumbed to American demands that it joined the anti-Taliban and anti-al Qaeda Coalition had been nothing more than Pakistani self preservation. Pakistan had assessed that an enraged America immediately post 9/11 in alliance with an anti-terrorist and anti-Pakistani India were far too intimidating for its own good. It HAD to ‘temporarily’ come across to the American side (with the unhappy implication that it could then be on the same side as arch foe India) for political expediency rather than genuine support of the USA.
It awaits an opportune moment to resume its alliance with the Taliban-Afghanistan, so necessary for its strategic objective of, and life-long obsession with Kashmir. The eventual reckoning with giant India requires Pakistan to have space (to trade for time, hence Afghanistan) and resources (Taliban) to fight its nemesis. Taliban-Afghanistan had provided and will once again provide that essential strategic factor in Pakistan quest for Kashmir.
To discern the substantiveness of its membership in the Coalition of the Convenient, one need only assess the sincerity of Pakistan’s efforts in tracking down Osama bin Laden who still lurks comfortably in its remote regions. Many Pakistani officials continue to close one eye to the activities and movements of the Saudi renegade, while dragging their feet over the hunt for him. The local support for Osama and the Taliban in Pakistan continues to be very strong.
Pakistan is a country that has been totally irresponsible with its nuclear programme, providing unfettered access to the technology to other dodgy and dangerous countries - it continues to deny IAEA and US access to AQ Khan so that they may assess what has been the unpleasant fallout of the maverick technology transfer.
The assets of the forthcoming F-16 will only threaten South Asian regional security, rather than improve it as Washington has the brazen gall to even suggest.
As I mentioned in an earlier posting USA – Consistently Inconsistent! the sheer inconsistency and illogic of American foreign policy has been nothing more than prostitution of its good world leadership and commonsense.
Just because Pakistan played footsy with the USA during the latter's Afghan adventure, Bush believes it is appropriate to reward a country with such a nuclear weapon capable platform as the F-16. Pakistan has a history of bellicosity with its neighbour, India. Contrary to what some assumed to be a new environment of amity between the two South Asian nations, the hostility has been very deep and, unfortunately continues to exist enduringly and threateningly.
The only reason why Pakistan had succumbed to American demands that it joined the anti-Taliban and anti-al Qaeda Coalition had been nothing more than Pakistani self preservation. Pakistan had assessed that an enraged America immediately post 9/11 in alliance with an anti-terrorist and anti-Pakistani India were far too intimidating for its own good. It HAD to ‘temporarily’ come across to the American side (with the unhappy implication that it could then be on the same side as arch foe India) for political expediency rather than genuine support of the USA.
It awaits an opportune moment to resume its alliance with the Taliban-Afghanistan, so necessary for its strategic objective of, and life-long obsession with Kashmir. The eventual reckoning with giant India requires Pakistan to have space (to trade for time, hence Afghanistan) and resources (Taliban) to fight its nemesis. Taliban-Afghanistan had provided and will once again provide that essential strategic factor in Pakistan quest for Kashmir.
To discern the substantiveness of its membership in the Coalition of the Convenient, one need only assess the sincerity of Pakistan’s efforts in tracking down Osama bin Laden who still lurks comfortably in its remote regions. Many Pakistani officials continue to close one eye to the activities and movements of the Saudi renegade, while dragging their feet over the hunt for him. The local support for Osama and the Taliban in Pakistan continues to be very strong.
Pakistan is a country that has been totally irresponsible with its nuclear programme, providing unfettered access to the technology to other dodgy and dangerous countries - it continues to deny IAEA and US access to AQ Khan so that they may assess what has been the unpleasant fallout of the maverick technology transfer.
The assets of the forthcoming F-16 will only threaten South Asian regional security, rather than improve it as Washington has the brazen gall to even suggest.
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Japan Unfit for World Leadership
The last World War should be over for Germany. She has apologised, made reparations and banned items and organizations associated with Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Nazism is illegal in Germany. Her President has made a moving statement of remorse in the Knesseton behalf of the German people.
President Horst Koehler said “Germany accepts its guilt for the Holocaust and stands side by side with Israel. The Holocaust was part of Germany's identity and that [Germany] would fight any new anti-Semitism”
By stark contrast, Japan has failed miserably to match her Axis partner’s remorse for her equally brutal WWII atrocities such as the Nanjing Massacre and the comfort women (or sex slaves for Japanese soldiers).
Till today, Japan has never extended a full apology to China or Korea.
Au contraire, she continues to revere her war criminals at the highest official level and attempts frequently to revise her history covering the WWII period, by twisting facts to whitewash her aggression and brutalities.
The UN is now considering expanding the Security Council permanent members to 10 instead of its current 5. Though the new five members will enjoy permanent seats, they will not have veto powers unlike the original 5 (USA, Russia, China, France and Britain).
Some nations have been touted as possible candidates for these permanent seats, among whom are Germany and Japan. While the world in general will not object to Germany (other than the argument that there are too many European nations already), I have no doubt many will not take kindly to the elevation of Japan, principally because of her lack of genuine remorse for her savage atrocities during WWII.
Can a nation that has consistently refused to acknowledge her dark past (like Germany has) be accepted as a leading citizen of the world?
President Horst Koehler said “Germany accepts its guilt for the Holocaust and stands side by side with Israel. The Holocaust was part of Germany's identity and that [Germany] would fight any new anti-Semitism”
By stark contrast, Japan has failed miserably to match her Axis partner’s remorse for her equally brutal WWII atrocities such as the Nanjing Massacre and the comfort women (or sex slaves for Japanese soldiers).
Till today, Japan has never extended a full apology to China or Korea.
Au contraire, she continues to revere her war criminals at the highest official level and attempts frequently to revise her history covering the WWII period, by twisting facts to whitewash her aggression and brutalities.
The UN is now considering expanding the Security Council permanent members to 10 instead of its current 5. Though the new five members will enjoy permanent seats, they will not have veto powers unlike the original 5 (USA, Russia, China, France and Britain).
Some nations have been touted as possible candidates for these permanent seats, among whom are Germany and Japan. While the world in general will not object to Germany (other than the argument that there are too many European nations already), I have no doubt many will not take kindly to the elevation of Japan, principally because of her lack of genuine remorse for her savage atrocities during WWII.
Can a nation that has consistently refused to acknowledge her dark past (like Germany has) be accepted as a leading citizen of the world?
Friday, March 25, 2005
Strategically Important Krygyzstan
Kyrgyzstan, a new American ally since the disintegration of the USSR, has just seen its people revolting against its dictatorial president.
Though the now-runaway (former) president Askar Akayev has been notorious for human rights violation, Washington has soft-pedalled its criticism of him. On the rare occasions when the US did so sternly, it did not demand tangible progress like the release of Kyrgyzstan’s incarcerated opposition members or anyone that had voiced objections to Akayev’s totalitarian rule.
The USA, like China, Russia and undoubtedly India, is very keen to maintain a foothold in the strategically located nation, hence has been perfunctory in its criticism of Askar Akayev.
Krygyzstan is smack right in the middle of the new energy-rich region of the ‘-stan’ nations, just next to the world's rising star of energy resources, Kazahkstan. Krygyzstan's strategic location allows military dominance of the neighbouring states, swift military penetration of both the Chinese and Russian heartlands, and for a convenient monitoring post for any hostile Islamist activities there. The saliva-inducing cream on top of the military cake has been the finding that the region has more oil and gas resources than the Gulf nations. The region is also rich in uranium.
The USA maintains a military base with 1000 troops there.
What direction will the nation now assume remains to be seen, but the people has obviously had a taste of people’s power and would be unlikely to countenance another dictatorial regime.
Map of Kyrgyzstan here.
Though the now-runaway (former) president Askar Akayev has been notorious for human rights violation, Washington has soft-pedalled its criticism of him. On the rare occasions when the US did so sternly, it did not demand tangible progress like the release of Kyrgyzstan’s incarcerated opposition members or anyone that had voiced objections to Akayev’s totalitarian rule.
The USA, like China, Russia and undoubtedly India, is very keen to maintain a foothold in the strategically located nation, hence has been perfunctory in its criticism of Askar Akayev.
Krygyzstan is smack right in the middle of the new energy-rich region of the ‘-stan’ nations, just next to the world's rising star of energy resources, Kazahkstan. Krygyzstan's strategic location allows military dominance of the neighbouring states, swift military penetration of both the Chinese and Russian heartlands, and for a convenient monitoring post for any hostile Islamist activities there. The saliva-inducing cream on top of the military cake has been the finding that the region has more oil and gas resources than the Gulf nations. The region is also rich in uranium.
The USA maintains a military base with 1000 troops there.
What direction will the nation now assume remains to be seen, but the people has obviously had a taste of people’s power and would be unlikely to countenance another dictatorial regime.
Map of Kyrgyzstan here.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Who was Abraham? (5)
Based on the works of scholars, who will be revealed when the blogging for this topic ends. Works of other authors may be included, but where these are done, full acknowledgement will be made.
Advice: Those who may take offence in seeing biblical (OT) quotations or liberal discussion of OT biblical characters should not read this topic.
The word Pharaoh was mentioned 274 times in the Bible in various descriptions and forms. In the first two books of the Old Testament (OT), Genesis and Exodus it was referred to 155 times.
Yet, in that 155 times, the OT failed to identify which Pharaoh was involved in the respective events. The time span as chronicled by the Books of Genesis and Exodus would logically suggest that the Pharaoh of Abraham and Sarah should be a different person to the Pharaoh of Joseph son of Jacob, and indeed to the Pharaoh of Moses and the Exodus.
In the story of Joseph, he was sold to an Egyptian Potiphar, one of Pharaoh’s officials (Genesis 39:1). After interpreting his famous seven fat and seven lean years for the Pharaoh (Genesis 41: 25-32), the latter made him the Grand Vizier, the No 2 man in the land, and conferred on him an Egyptian name, Zapethnath-Paneah and married him off to an Egyptian wife, Asenath (meaning Gift of the Sun-God). She was the daughter of Potiphera, priest of On (Genesis 41:45).
Notice how detailed the personalities were identified, yet the name of the Pharaoh was not revealed. Instead the Pharaoh was merely referred to as ‘a new king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph’ (Exodus 1:8).
As for Moses, we read of Pharaoh learning of the killing of an Egyptian by this Prince of Egypt (Exodus 2:12), and naturally wanting to have Moses executed (Exodus 2:15). Of course by then Moses had fled. Much later, after marrying Zipporah and witnessing the burning bush, he heard that the Pharaoh died. By then God ordered him back to Egypt to demand from the new Pharaoh the release of the Israelite slaves (Exodus 3:10).
Again, we observe the lack of details about one of the most significant Pharaoh in the biblical saga. Who was this Pharaoh? Or better, who were the Pharaohs, the one who died as well as his newly crowned successor?
Compare the seemingly evasive or, if one wants to be less conspiratorial, broad brushing of certain Pharaohs’ identities, particularly those associated with the stories or events from Abraham to Moses, with the detailed genealogies of others in the Old Testament, as presented in Genesis Chapter 4:17-22 (Cain’s), Genesis Chapter 5 (Noah’s, he of the Flood and Ark fame), Genesis Chapter 10 (The sons of Noah and their families’), Genesis Chapter 11:10-32 (from Shem to Abraham), and the list of details goes on.
The question must be a straightfoward WHY?
To be continued ……..
Advice: Those who may take offence in seeing biblical (OT) quotations or liberal discussion of OT biblical characters should not read this topic.
The word Pharaoh was mentioned 274 times in the Bible in various descriptions and forms. In the first two books of the Old Testament (OT), Genesis and Exodus it was referred to 155 times.
Yet, in that 155 times, the OT failed to identify which Pharaoh was involved in the respective events. The time span as chronicled by the Books of Genesis and Exodus would logically suggest that the Pharaoh of Abraham and Sarah should be a different person to the Pharaoh of Joseph son of Jacob, and indeed to the Pharaoh of Moses and the Exodus.
In the story of Joseph, he was sold to an Egyptian Potiphar, one of Pharaoh’s officials (Genesis 39:1). After interpreting his famous seven fat and seven lean years for the Pharaoh (Genesis 41: 25-32), the latter made him the Grand Vizier, the No 2 man in the land, and conferred on him an Egyptian name, Zapethnath-Paneah and married him off to an Egyptian wife, Asenath (meaning Gift of the Sun-God). She was the daughter of Potiphera, priest of On (Genesis 41:45).
Notice how detailed the personalities were identified, yet the name of the Pharaoh was not revealed. Instead the Pharaoh was merely referred to as ‘a new king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph’ (Exodus 1:8).
As for Moses, we read of Pharaoh learning of the killing of an Egyptian by this Prince of Egypt (Exodus 2:12), and naturally wanting to have Moses executed (Exodus 2:15). Of course by then Moses had fled. Much later, after marrying Zipporah and witnessing the burning bush, he heard that the Pharaoh died. By then God ordered him back to Egypt to demand from the new Pharaoh the release of the Israelite slaves (Exodus 3:10).
Again, we observe the lack of details about one of the most significant Pharaoh in the biblical saga. Who was this Pharaoh? Or better, who were the Pharaohs, the one who died as well as his newly crowned successor?
Compare the seemingly evasive or, if one wants to be less conspiratorial, broad brushing of certain Pharaohs’ identities, particularly those associated with the stories or events from Abraham to Moses, with the detailed genealogies of others in the Old Testament, as presented in Genesis Chapter 4:17-22 (Cain’s), Genesis Chapter 5 (Noah’s, he of the Flood and Ark fame), Genesis Chapter 10 (The sons of Noah and their families’), Genesis Chapter 11:10-32 (from Shem to Abraham), and the list of details goes on.
The question must be a straightfoward WHY?
To be continued ……..
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Inconsistently Pro-Life; Consistently BS-ing!
“….. where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life"
- President Bush
So said the man responsible for more State executions than any governor in the USA. The US justice system has been known to be so fraught with unreliability that any conscionable authority would not have permitted the death penalty to exist within the system.
Anyway, the case that drew that hypocritical remark from President Bush involved one Terri Schiavo, who has been brain-dead for the last 15 years, and is living, as doctors described, like a vegetable. After years of court cases, the legal system agreed with her husband that life as understood does not exist for her anymore, and ordered the feedline that has kept her body going, removed.
Entered one George W Bush and the conservative Right-to-Life electorate. The President had to rushed a last minute emergency legislative Bill to overturn the court’s ruling so that Terri Schiavo may continue to be kept physically alive, or more likely the actual reason, that his constituency may be appeased.
Bush then came up with that double-standard pontificating to justify his interference in a man's management of his private life that has already been sanctioned by a court (what say those libetarians now?), while the Republican Party senators, recalled for the emergency Bill, had this note waiting for them in their offices:
"This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue. This is a great political issue ... and a tough issue for Democrats"
Observe how that note started on a moral high tone, but before one could gather one’s wits from reading the first sentence, the second sentence has already said it all – “…This is a great political issue ... and a tough issue for Democrats”
What grubby distasteful grandstanding that has unscrupulously exploited the unhappy circumstances of a family's sufferings, and virtually prolongs the agony of a long suffering husband, all merely to gain an edge over the political opposition. I hope Bush will also pass a Bill requiring those urging and supporting the prolongation of Terri Schiavo's vegetable existence to be also responsible for looking after her.
UPDATE:
A federal judge refused to order the reinsertion of the feeding tube for Terri Schiavo.
Who was Abraham? (4)
Based on the works of scholars, who will be revealed when the blogging for this topic ends. Works of other authors may be included, but where these are done, full acknowledgement will be made.
Advice: Those who may take offence in seeing biblical (OT) quotations or liberal discussion of OT biblical characters should not read this topic.
We keep coming around to Egypt, where the Hebrews suffered slavery for 430 years, was allowed to leave the country only after a terrifying 10 plagues that eventually killed the Pharaoh’s firstborn - an acrimonious series of events that undoubtedly traumatised the Egyptians initially, and certainly angered them subsequently. Yet we keep reading of Hebrews running back to the land of their so-called enemies, Egypt, for refuge whenever they were in strife, either when escaping from their enemies from the east and northeast, or looking for food. And each time they were well treated by their host (and so-called mortal enemies), the Egyptians.
While this topic doesn’t intend to go beyond the Old Testament, it may worthwhile recalling Matthew 2:13 which advised Joseph in a dream, of Herod’s murderous hunt for the newborn Messiah:
“Arise,” he said. “take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt and stay there until I bring the word ………”
And of course the Hebrews’ (Jews’) greatest prophet, Moses was raised and brought up as an Egyptian prince before he had a falling out with his foster family.
And then, most surprising, in Deuteronomy, under 23: Exclusion From the Assembly, God warned the Hebrews not to allow the neighbouring nationalities to enter the assembly of the Lord, even unto the tenth generation, except for the Edomites and the Egyptians.
The Edomites were of course cousins to the Israelite people, as they were descendants of Esau, the firstborn of Isaac, who lost his birthrights to Jacob through trickery and deceit.
Author Graham Phillips presented his rather interesting research findings on Moses in his book ‘The Moses Legacy – The Evidence of History’. While I don’t subscribe to his beliefs I think it is a marvellous read and certainly makes one wonder. In the book he also spoke gloweringly of the Edomites as the benign keepers of the true Judaic religion.
Anyway, Deuteronomy 23:7-8 read:
“You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were an alien in his land; the children of the third generation born to them may enter the congregation of the Lord.”
The Edomites I can understand, but why this special treatment for their mortal enemies, the Egyptians, their oppressors who kept them in bondage for 430 years, and required a series of terrifying divine-sent plagues to intimidate the Pharaoh before he released them from slavery.
Indeed why?
To be continued ........
Advice: Those who may take offence in seeing biblical (OT) quotations or liberal discussion of OT biblical characters should not read this topic.
We keep coming around to Egypt, where the Hebrews suffered slavery for 430 years, was allowed to leave the country only after a terrifying 10 plagues that eventually killed the Pharaoh’s firstborn - an acrimonious series of events that undoubtedly traumatised the Egyptians initially, and certainly angered them subsequently. Yet we keep reading of Hebrews running back to the land of their so-called enemies, Egypt, for refuge whenever they were in strife, either when escaping from their enemies from the east and northeast, or looking for food. And each time they were well treated by their host (and so-called mortal enemies), the Egyptians.
While this topic doesn’t intend to go beyond the Old Testament, it may worthwhile recalling Matthew 2:13 which advised Joseph in a dream, of Herod’s murderous hunt for the newborn Messiah:
“Arise,” he said. “take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt and stay there until I bring the word ………”
And of course the Hebrews’ (Jews’) greatest prophet, Moses was raised and brought up as an Egyptian prince before he had a falling out with his foster family.
And then, most surprising, in Deuteronomy, under 23: Exclusion From the Assembly, God warned the Hebrews not to allow the neighbouring nationalities to enter the assembly of the Lord, even unto the tenth generation, except for the Edomites and the Egyptians.
The Edomites were of course cousins to the Israelite people, as they were descendants of Esau, the firstborn of Isaac, who lost his birthrights to Jacob through trickery and deceit.
Author Graham Phillips presented his rather interesting research findings on Moses in his book ‘The Moses Legacy – The Evidence of History’. While I don’t subscribe to his beliefs I think it is a marvellous read and certainly makes one wonder. In the book he also spoke gloweringly of the Edomites as the benign keepers of the true Judaic religion.
Anyway, Deuteronomy 23:7-8 read:
“You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were an alien in his land; the children of the third generation born to them may enter the congregation of the Lord.”
The Edomites I can understand, but why this special treatment for their mortal enemies, the Egyptians, their oppressors who kept them in bondage for 430 years, and required a series of terrifying divine-sent plagues to intimidate the Pharaoh before he released them from slavery.
Indeed why?
To be continued ........
Malaysia Frees Terrorist Suspects!
BREAKING NEWS - 1:15 P.M
Malaysia frees 6 terrorist suspects including Wan Min Wan Mat, a former university lecturer accused of providing financial assistance to the perpetrators of the Bali bombing, which killed over 200 people. The other 5 are students who had gone to Pakistan for religious studies but nipped across the border to Afghanistan where they met Osama bin Laden and received weapons and explosive training. Malaysian authorities said they have been rehabilitated.
Malaysia frees 6 terrorist suspects including Wan Min Wan Mat, a former university lecturer accused of providing financial assistance to the perpetrators of the Bali bombing, which killed over 200 people. The other 5 are students who had gone to Pakistan for religious studies but nipped across the border to Afghanistan where they met Osama bin Laden and received weapons and explosive training. Malaysian authorities said they have been rehabilitated.
Monday, March 21, 2005
Can you like him?
American Nobel Prize laureate Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank, who is considered one of the most influential economic thinkers, has resoundingly condemned the appointment of Paul Wolfowitz as the president of the World Bank. Even the Bank’s staff have raised their opposition to Wolfowitz’s appointment. Stiglitz accused President Bush of either being deliberately provocative or so insensitive as to appear provocative.
Wolfowitz has been the principal architect of the Iraqi invasion, which has killed more than 1500 young American men and women, maimed/wounded several thousands more, cost more than US$200 billion (and still rising), added on to a mounting national deficit and divided the nation - all these for the worst possible loss (instead of the expected gain) to America's immediate and strategic interests!
I am personally inclined to believe the latter of Stiglitz's condemnation, that of a Bush so insensitive as to appear to be provocative, rather than being deliberately provocative. I have noted that Bush has been slowly removing some hardcore right wingers like Wolfowitz (to the World Bank) and Bolton (as ambassador to the UN – now, can you beat that insensitivity?), instead of promoting them within the Administration,like he did with Condoleezza Rice.
I believe that Bush, now secured in his second term, has become more aware of who had led him down the garden path and been responsible for his current state of woe and unpopularity, both at home and with his allies.
Bush has probably become very disenchanted with those ultras who fed him lies. He can't sack or demote them because that would only reflect on his own incompetency, so he moves them either sideways or upstairs but out of the Administration's core.
But Wolfowitz needn't be unduly concerned that he would suffer in any way the same fate as those GIs in Iraq - he should still be as snugly safe in his new air-conditioned office at the World Bank headquarters as he had been at the Pentagon.
Related posting:
Can you trust him?
Wolfowitz has been the principal architect of the Iraqi invasion, which has killed more than 1500 young American men and women, maimed/wounded several thousands more, cost more than US$200 billion (and still rising), added on to a mounting national deficit and divided the nation - all these for the worst possible loss (instead of the expected gain) to America's immediate and strategic interests!
I am personally inclined to believe the latter of Stiglitz's condemnation, that of a Bush so insensitive as to appear to be provocative, rather than being deliberately provocative. I have noted that Bush has been slowly removing some hardcore right wingers like Wolfowitz (to the World Bank) and Bolton (as ambassador to the UN – now, can you beat that insensitivity?), instead of promoting them within the Administration,like he did with Condoleezza Rice.
I believe that Bush, now secured in his second term, has become more aware of who had led him down the garden path and been responsible for his current state of woe and unpopularity, both at home and with his allies.
Bush has probably become very disenchanted with those ultras who fed him lies. He can't sack or demote them because that would only reflect on his own incompetency, so he moves them either sideways or upstairs but out of the Administration's core.
But Wolfowitz needn't be unduly concerned that he would suffer in any way the same fate as those GIs in Iraq - he should still be as snugly safe in his new air-conditioned office at the World Bank headquarters as he had been at the Pentagon.
Related posting:
Can you trust him?
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Bio-Chemical Warfare I Love
It doesn't matter who you are, or what you've done, or think you can do. There's a confrontation with destiny awaiting you. Somewhere, there is a chile you cannot eat.
- Daniel Pinkwater, 'A Hot Time in Nairobi'
Last year the chillies I planted were overall so so, with those that I was curious about, like Habanero, failing miserably to fruit though tantalising me with an unfulfilled promise through some fragile blooms, while those that I was rather blasé towards, like Bird’s Eyes, virtually went wild with a very bountiful harvest.
This year I place the plants in a sunnier location, and with great delight I have finally harvested some Habaneros. This baby has been rated the hottest chilli, with a Scoville scale of 580,000. And I can certainly testify to that claim, requiring several cold beers to mitigate my first exposure to the tongue scorcher. Best of all, it also possesses a marvellous fragrance.
Now it seems another claimant to the title of the ‘fieriest’ has asserted its status – the Indian Tezpur from Assam which rates over 800,000 on the Scoville scale. The power of this Indian babe is just sheer staggering, especially after my experience with Habanero. I must try to lay my hands on a few of these plants (Moses' burning bush?).
Chillies originated in South America and were taken to Europe by the Spaniards in the 15th Century, and from there to the rest of the world by European traders. The conquistadors might have been murderous bastards but we have to thank them for giving the world this wonderful fruit.
- Daniel Pinkwater, 'A Hot Time in Nairobi'
Last year the chillies I planted were overall so so, with those that I was curious about, like Habanero, failing miserably to fruit though tantalising me with an unfulfilled promise through some fragile blooms, while those that I was rather blasé towards, like Bird’s Eyes, virtually went wild with a very bountiful harvest.
This year I place the plants in a sunnier location, and with great delight I have finally harvested some Habaneros. This baby has been rated the hottest chilli, with a Scoville scale of 580,000. And I can certainly testify to that claim, requiring several cold beers to mitigate my first exposure to the tongue scorcher. Best of all, it also possesses a marvellous fragrance.
Now it seems another claimant to the title of the ‘fieriest’ has asserted its status – the Indian Tezpur from Assam which rates over 800,000 on the Scoville scale. The power of this Indian babe is just sheer staggering, especially after my experience with Habanero. I must try to lay my hands on a few of these plants (Moses' burning bush?).
Chillies originated in South America and were taken to Europe by the Spaniards in the 15th Century, and from there to the rest of the world by European traders. The conquistadors might have been murderous bastards but we have to thank them for giving the world this wonderful fruit.
Bellicose Balls-Bearing Blair Betrays British!
Despite being informed by his Intelligence chief that the US was ‘fixing’ up the case for war with Iraq, Tony Blair rushed to join the Collusion of the Willing, purely to show Bush that Britain would be America’s closest ally.
Richard Dearlove, Head of Britain’s MI6, averred that the 'facts' and 'intelligence' were being fixed round the policy by US President George Bush's administration – in other words, the Americans were highly 'creative' or to put it in more blunt terms, lying.
Rex Keys, the father of a British soldier killed in Iraq said "I stand here a betrayed man by my government who lied to me about the need to send my son to war".
Related posting:
BolehTalk’s Blair’s Hubris = Tears for Soldiers’ Families
BolehTalk’s Machiavellian As Machiavellian Can Be
Richard Dearlove, Head of Britain’s MI6, averred that the 'facts' and 'intelligence' were being fixed round the policy by US President George Bush's administration – in other words, the Americans were highly 'creative' or to put it in more blunt terms, lying.
Rex Keys, the father of a British soldier killed in Iraq said "I stand here a betrayed man by my government who lied to me about the need to send my son to war".
Related posting:
BolehTalk’s Blair’s Hubris = Tears for Soldiers’ Families
BolehTalk’s Machiavellian As Machiavellian Can Be
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Can you trust him?
I am not sure whether Paul Wolfowitz was kicked upstairs or sideways into the traditionally American held-post of the World Bank's presidency. The architect of America’s ill-conceived invasion of Iraq claimed that he won’t be a US stooge in the organization, nor was he seeking refuge in the Bank to escape controversy – what controversy, Paul, pray tell us?
The US government 9/11 Report showed that Paul Wolfowitz had urged the US to attack Iraq after the 9/11 incident when clearly no such evidence of Iraqi involvement existed. The Report continued with the observation that there was no credible evidence supporting Paul Wolfowitz’s argument that Iraq was involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centre.
Can you trust such a man?
The US government 9/11 Report showed that Paul Wolfowitz had urged the US to attack Iraq after the 9/11 incident when clearly no such evidence of Iraqi involvement existed. The Report continued with the observation that there was no credible evidence supporting Paul Wolfowitz’s argument that Iraq was involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centre.
Can you trust such a man?
Who was Abraham? (3)
Based on the works of scholars, who will be revealed when the blogging for this topic ends. Works of other authors may be included, but where these are done, full acknowledgement will be made.
Advice: Those who may take offence in seeing biblical (OT) quotations or liberal discussion of OT biblical characters should not read this topic.
“The Israelis journeyed from Rameses to Succoth. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children …..” (Exodus 12:37)
The Book of Exodus relates the preparation of the Hebraic exodus from Egypt after the Pharaoh, cowered by the 10 plagues including the death of his firstborn, gave Moses leave to lead 600,000 male Jewish slaves plus their families, totalling some two million people.
2,000,000 Hebrew slaves migrating out of Egypt!
Yet, not one mention of this monumental migration was ever recorded in Egyptian history! Not one!
“Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years. At the end of the 430 years, to the very day, all the Lords’ division left Egypt …..” (Exodus 12:40-41)
Nearly half a millennium of residence in Egypt by 2,000,000 Hebrews – again there wasn’t any Egyptian record of them! Not one!
This had been an unexplained omission of amazing proportion by the Egyptian scribes. Or, was it?
Were there Hebrews in Egypt afterall? Was there ever an Exodus?
The word ‘Egypt’ appeared in the Bible more than 750 times while ‘pharaoh’ was mentioned over 200 times. More than any of the Israelite nation’s neighbouring countries, Egypt was the most described country in the Scriptures.
Egypt – the nation that, according to the Bible, held 2,000,000 Hebrews in slavery until God instructed Moses to lead his people out of Egyptian bondage. The Egyptian pharaoh only released them after a bitter and acrimonious struggle resulting in the deaths of all Egyptian first-borns including the pharaoh’s own.
Egypt – where the Israelite people including its kings would always run to for refuge and sanctuary when threatened by other warring nations such as the Babylonians. The prophet Jeremiah threatened the Hebrews about running to Egypt for refuge when the Babylonians were advancing, by relaying God’s message: “As my anger and wrath have been poured out on those who lived in Jerusalem, so will my wrath be poured out on you when you go to Egypt” (Jer 42:18). But the Hebrews nevertheless went to seek sanctuary in Egypt, and Jeremiah, notwithstanding his own warnings, followed, purportedly to rail against the Israelites for picking up Egyptian worship (Jer 44).
Surely in Egypt there must be something to explain all those mysterious and very monumental omissions of records indicating Hebraic presence there, unless of course there was no Hebrew ever in Egypt, and thus no Hebraic exodus took place.
To be continued ........
Advice: Those who may take offence in seeing biblical (OT) quotations or liberal discussion of OT biblical characters should not read this topic.
“The Israelis journeyed from Rameses to Succoth. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children …..” (Exodus 12:37)
The Book of Exodus relates the preparation of the Hebraic exodus from Egypt after the Pharaoh, cowered by the 10 plagues including the death of his firstborn, gave Moses leave to lead 600,000 male Jewish slaves plus their families, totalling some two million people.
2,000,000 Hebrew slaves migrating out of Egypt!
Yet, not one mention of this monumental migration was ever recorded in Egyptian history! Not one!
“Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years. At the end of the 430 years, to the very day, all the Lords’ division left Egypt …..” (Exodus 12:40-41)
Nearly half a millennium of residence in Egypt by 2,000,000 Hebrews – again there wasn’t any Egyptian record of them! Not one!
This had been an unexplained omission of amazing proportion by the Egyptian scribes. Or, was it?
Were there Hebrews in Egypt afterall? Was there ever an Exodus?
The word ‘Egypt’ appeared in the Bible more than 750 times while ‘pharaoh’ was mentioned over 200 times. More than any of the Israelite nation’s neighbouring countries, Egypt was the most described country in the Scriptures.
Egypt – the nation that, according to the Bible, held 2,000,000 Hebrews in slavery until God instructed Moses to lead his people out of Egyptian bondage. The Egyptian pharaoh only released them after a bitter and acrimonious struggle resulting in the deaths of all Egyptian first-borns including the pharaoh’s own.
Egypt – where the Israelite people including its kings would always run to for refuge and sanctuary when threatened by other warring nations such as the Babylonians. The prophet Jeremiah threatened the Hebrews about running to Egypt for refuge when the Babylonians were advancing, by relaying God’s message: “As my anger and wrath have been poured out on those who lived in Jerusalem, so will my wrath be poured out on you when you go to Egypt” (Jer 42:18). But the Hebrews nevertheless went to seek sanctuary in Egypt, and Jeremiah, notwithstanding his own warnings, followed, purportedly to rail against the Israelites for picking up Egyptian worship (Jer 44).
Surely in Egypt there must be something to explain all those mysterious and very monumental omissions of records indicating Hebraic presence there, unless of course there was no Hebrew ever in Egypt, and thus no Hebraic exodus took place.
To be continued ........
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Who was Araham? (2)
Based on the works of scholars, who will be revealed when the blogging for this topic ends. Works of other authors may be included, but where these are done, full acknowledgement will be made.
Advice: Those who may take offence in seeing biblical (OT) quotations or liberal discussion of OT biblical characters should not read this topic.
“… Haran died in Ur of the Chaldeans, in the land of his birth.” (Genesis 11:28)
“Terah took his son Abram ….. and together they set out from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to Canaan …” (Genesis 11:31)
Some doubt the veracity of the suggestion that Abram originated from, or that his brother Haran died in Ur of the Chaldeans for the reason, according to the arlev.clara.net website, that ‘Chaldeans didn’t settle in this part of the world until after Moses was around and certainly weren’t there way back when Abraham lived among them’.
Thus, as suggested in previous posting on this topic, Egypt would be still the best bet to find a trace of Abraham’s origin.
Ancient Egypt was a land famous for its fastidious recording of historical events, even of those who invaded her (eg. the Hyksos, Macedonians, etc). The activities and lives of her Pharaohs, generals, priests, officials, etc were recorded into immortality. Virtually everything and anything could be read from the writings of ancient Egypt on walls of tombs, temples, ancient ruins, stones, wooden caskets, and any material capable of being written upon.
“When Abram came to Egypt, the Egyptians saw that she [Sarai or Sarah] was a very beautiful woman. And when Pharaoh’s officials saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh, and she was taken into his palace.” (Genesis 12:14)
Yet, Egyptian historical scripts on artifacts, temples and tombs, in fact anything, do not contain one single reference to Abraham [or Abram] or his wife Sarah [Sarai].
“So Pharaoh said to Joseph, I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt. Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger …….. He had him ride as his second-in-command …. Thus he put him in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” (Genesis 41:41 to 41:43)
The above biblical passage referred to Abraham's great grandson Joseph, he of the ‘seven years of fat and seven years of lean’ in Egypt, favourite son of Jacob, sold off as a slave by his jealous brothers. Joseph was virtually the overseer of Egypt, second only to mighty Pharaoh.
“… she took him to Pharaoh’s daughter and he became her son. She named him Moses, saying I drew him out of the water.” (Exodus 2:10)
Then there was the greatest prophet of the Jews, Moses, who was brought up as an Egyptian prince, and led the Jew slaves out of Egyptian bondage.
The most puzzling mystery has been that in a land of such fastidious recording of events, not one single line of hieroglyph or hieratic in Egypt’s vast repository of recording made any mention of these personalities.
To be continued ........
Advice: Those who may take offence in seeing biblical (OT) quotations or liberal discussion of OT biblical characters should not read this topic.
“… Haran died in Ur of the Chaldeans, in the land of his birth.” (Genesis 11:28)
“Terah took his son Abram ….. and together they set out from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to Canaan …” (Genesis 11:31)
Some doubt the veracity of the suggestion that Abram originated from, or that his brother Haran died in Ur of the Chaldeans for the reason, according to the arlev.clara.net website, that ‘Chaldeans didn’t settle in this part of the world until after Moses was around and certainly weren’t there way back when Abraham lived among them’.
Thus, as suggested in previous posting on this topic, Egypt would be still the best bet to find a trace of Abraham’s origin.
Ancient Egypt was a land famous for its fastidious recording of historical events, even of those who invaded her (eg. the Hyksos, Macedonians, etc). The activities and lives of her Pharaohs, generals, priests, officials, etc were recorded into immortality. Virtually everything and anything could be read from the writings of ancient Egypt on walls of tombs, temples, ancient ruins, stones, wooden caskets, and any material capable of being written upon.
“When Abram came to Egypt, the Egyptians saw that she [Sarai or Sarah] was a very beautiful woman. And when Pharaoh’s officials saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh, and she was taken into his palace.” (Genesis 12:14)
Yet, Egyptian historical scripts on artifacts, temples and tombs, in fact anything, do not contain one single reference to Abraham [or Abram] or his wife Sarah [Sarai].
“So Pharaoh said to Joseph, I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt. Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger …….. He had him ride as his second-in-command …. Thus he put him in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” (Genesis 41:41 to 41:43)
The above biblical passage referred to Abraham's great grandson Joseph, he of the ‘seven years of fat and seven years of lean’ in Egypt, favourite son of Jacob, sold off as a slave by his jealous brothers. Joseph was virtually the overseer of Egypt, second only to mighty Pharaoh.
“… she took him to Pharaoh’s daughter and he became her son. She named him Moses, saying I drew him out of the water.” (Exodus 2:10)
Then there was the greatest prophet of the Jews, Moses, who was brought up as an Egyptian prince, and led the Jew slaves out of Egyptian bondage.
The most puzzling mystery has been that in a land of such fastidious recording of events, not one single line of hieroglyph or hieratic in Egypt’s vast repository of recording made any mention of these personalities.
To be continued ........
USA - Consistently Inconsistent!
Condoleezza Rice told Europe not to sell arms to China, as it will raise tensions in the Taiwan Straits. But, according to the South Asian media, the USA will be selling F-16 fighter-attack aircraft to both Pakistan and India, both of who had undergone several wars before and today still remain highly tense over Kashmir.
Well, that blatant inconsistency is definitely consistent of America!
The USA for all its freedom & democracy finger-wagging at countries like Syria, Iran and those not its client states, has consistently refused to criticise its buddy the dictator Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, even though Musharraf has forever reneged on his promise to step down as army chief of staff, retaining hold of the powerful Pakistani army to ensure his totalitarian rule.
Well, that blatant inconsistency is definitely consistent of ……. wait a dingdong minute, didn’t I say this of America already?
Well, at least I am consistent
Well, that blatant inconsistency is definitely consistent of America!
The USA for all its freedom & democracy finger-wagging at countries like Syria, Iran and those not its client states, has consistently refused to criticise its buddy the dictator Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, even though Musharraf has forever reneged on his promise to step down as army chief of staff, retaining hold of the powerful Pakistani army to ensure his totalitarian rule.
Well, that blatant inconsistency is definitely consistent of ……. wait a dingdong minute, didn’t I say this of America already?
Well, at least I am consistent
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)